Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Randy Mosquera Gil, a Venezuelan citizen in removal proceedings without a final removal order, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He sought release from immigration custody and challenged his detention on statutory and constitutional grounds.
The court considered whether Mosquera Gil was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), whether mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated due process, and whether his detention was unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, or the Fourth Amendment.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. It held that Fifth Circuit precedent in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi required Mosquera Gil’s mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) because he had not shown that he was clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission. That precedent foreclosed his claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
The court further held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed the due-process challenge. Because § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandated detention, the APA and Accardi theories did not identify a final unlawful agency action for review. The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) to review arrest-related claims arising from the commencement of removal proceedings and that an alleged Fourth Amendment violation would not affect the legality of detention pending removal proceedings. It denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen in removal proceedings who is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) under binding Fifth Circuit precedent.
- Buenrostro-Mendez foreclosed the petitioner’s claim to a § 1226(a) bond hearing, while Sosnava Rodriguez foreclosed his due-process challenge to mandatory detention.
- Arrest-related and Fourth Amendment allegations did not provide a basis for habeas relief from otherwise lawful immigration detention.
Why It Matters
The ruling applies recent Fifth Circuit precedent to reject several recurring challenges to pre-removal-order immigration detention. In the Western District of Texas, detainees covered by § 1225(b)(2)(A) cannot obtain a bond hearing or release through statutory or due-process arguments foreclosed by those appellate decisions.
The opinion also limits alternative routes to habeas relief, explaining that APA, Accardi, and arrest-related Fourth Amendment theories do not overcome detention expressly mandated by statute.